Pope to pro-choice pols: How does excommunication grab you?

posted at 12:38 pm on May 9, 2007 by Allahpundit

We could have gone with Pelosi for the thumbnail, too, of course, but this is really Rudy’s issue now, isn’t it?

Say, isn’t Rudy already excommunicated by virtue of his divorce from Donna Hanover? Nope, as it turns out. That rule has gone the way of Limbo. Apparently he’s still a full-fledged member of the Church in good (or fair) standing. For the moment.

We actually posted on this subject back in March, when the Pope warned Catholic politicians not to stray too far from the flock on this rather important Church teaching. But not until now has he talked penalties.

The Pope was asked whether he supported Mexican Church leaders threatening to excommunicate leftist parliamentarians who last month voted to legalize abortion in Mexico City.

“Yes, this excommunication was not an arbitrary one but is allowed by Canon (church) law which says that the killing of an innocent child is incompatible with receiving communion, which is receiving the body of Christ,” he said.

“They (Mexican Church leaders) did nothing new, surprising or arbitrary. They simply announced publicly what is contained in the law of the Church… which expresses our appreciation for life and that human individuality, human personality is present from the first moment (of life)”.

I love the dateline on the piece. Exit question: Can Rudy turn this to his advantage by defying the Pope and making it a faux-principled church/state issue?

This week the head of the Los Angeles Archdiocese, Cardinal Roger Mahoney, basically threatened his faithful with denial of heaven if they don’t support amnesty for illegal aliens. The good Cardinal said: “Anything that tears down one group of people or one person, anything that is a negative in our community, disqualifies us from being part of the eternal city.”

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Exit question: He will try….but I don’t think this will amount to a hill of beans to the American voter…..JFK (kaf-choke) election settled this whole issue with the American people (which is why I don’t believe Romney has to worry about the Mormon-mud slinging).

Will it really matter all that much? Kerry, a pro-choice Catholic, got 47% of the Catholic vote.

Which means 53% of Catholics (or thereabouts) voted for Bush. How many of them think abortion is an important issue, and how many will be swayed by the Pope taking a line as hard as this?

We’re not talking about tens of millions of people, probably, but the primary won’t be decided by a margin of tens of millions. Plus, I can’t imagine conservative Protestants will think more highly of Rudy knowing that his own church finds his views so abominable as to deny him membership.

am I the only person who thinks the pope is kinda sticking his nose into political decisions that aren’t his area to go in?

I don’t see the “political decisions” angle. It’s a church decision to excommunicate someone. Perhaps it will get some Catholic politicians to evaluate just how well their pro-abortion speeches jive with, you know, Jesus.

It’ll matter, getting booted from your own church is embarrassing. I’m not sure how this would play out, given that the media will pound the church as acting like Inquisitors or some such thing, and a lot of people will think it too draconian, given how excommunication has fallen out of practice because its not PC.

Let me preempt the “Freedom of Religion” whine that you’re surely to see (although, maybe not here). This in no way is the federal government restricting a person’s rights. This is the Pope pointing out the obvious: If you don’t act like a Catholic, you’re not really a Catholic.

If you disagree with the Catholic Church on doctrinal points, as an American you can be anything you like. You can be a Protestant, Muslim, Mormon, atheist, agnostic; you could worship a comet for all we care.

Say, isn’t Rudy already excommunicated by virtue of his divorce from Donna Hanover? Nope, as it turns out. That rule has gone the way of Limbo.

AP doesn’t understand the teaching on Limbo or Canon law concerning divorce. Limbo was never doctrine (and is supported by Old and New Testament texts like “the Bosom of Abraham”). On divorce, the Catholic person is not automatically refused the sacraments unless they remarry without a decree of nullity (this is on the link he posted). Rudy, however, could be excommunicated (as well as refused the sacraments) for his persistent support of abortion. The fact that he, Pelosi, Kerry, Kennedy, et al are not is a testament to how unwilling the US bishops are to uphold Catholic Canon law.

Well, you know that there isn’t an “excommunication” ceremony or anything. For example, when a Catholic woman has an abortion she excommunicates herself. She can continue to go to Mass and receive communion because no one is going to stop her or even know. It is a grave sin to do so, but there it is.

It’s always the person’s choice.

Let me point out one difference is citing percentages of Catholics and such. Many people identify themselves as Catholic yet do not practice their faith at all or in a very limited way. I’m betting the majority of these are the ones who voted for Kerry (since Kerry is one of them) Then there are those who practice their faith and it is very dear to them. (like myself) They are the ones most aligned with the conservative Protestants, who only really identify themselves that way if they actually practice their faith. So their numbers are always higher for Republicans.

So for the sake of learning, what does give the pope the right to tell politicians don’t do this or else?

Defector01 on May 9, 2007 at 1:07 PM

He is head of the Catholic faith and can decide who’s in and who’s out of the church based on Catholic doctrine and teachings. And not just politicians. This is NOT a political thing, to excommunicate members from the church when they stray from church teachings. He is not threatening any one’s job, or telling them how to vote, or anything else. If you want to be Catholic, be Catholic. Or get out of the Catholic church. That is all.

So for the sake of learning, what does give the pope the right to tell politicians don’t do this or else?

Defector01 on May 9, 2007 at 1:07 PM

Uh, as the leader of the Catholic Church, the Pope not only has the right but the obligation to do this.

You’ll notice that there is no economic or political penalty. If you don’t act like a Catholic, the Church has the obligation to correct you. In this case, the correction is either:
a) You admit you’re wrong about what you publicly profess

or

b) You accept that you’re no longer a Catholic

In the end, the decision is the politician’s to embrace one of the above positions.

Right because we all know Jesus only accepted the perfect, 100% followers, who had never committed sins, or disobeyed the church – oh, wait. He accepted tramps, prostitutes, etc.

Does the Pope have a right to dictate my religion to me? Yep. My politics? No. Great thing about America – separation between church and state. You know who else thinks their religious leaders have the right to dictate to their politicians, and interfere with politics? Muslims. You’d all be fine with an Imam dictating what one of our politicians does and believes, right?

He’s not the only one. I’d like to see the priests who had sexual relations with little boys, and the 2 priests in Florida who stole millions of dollars from the church, excommunicated, first. Those aren’t Catholic values, anymore than abortion is.

Exit question: Can Rudy turn this to his advantage by defying the Pope and making it a faux-principled church/state issue?

I think that it only hurts him by bringing up his socially liberal record. Having said that, other folks are going to bring it up anyway. It will have so little net effect (positive or negative) that it’s politically irrelevant.

Yeah, except the other thing about Catholicism, is you make mistakes and learn how to follow Christ, not get thrown out for making mistakes in your life. Their are countless men who have become priests, after living a life of doing drugs, breaking the law, stealing, having supported abortion, etc. They made mistakes, the learned from them, and now live in the way of Christ.

If people didn’t screw up in their religions, and go off the path (even if for a good chunk of your life), there’d be no confession.

Perhaps you have not noticed this, but nobody in the US is forced to be Catholic. You may have also not noticed that Roman Catholicism (unlike Islam) has an undisputed leader, aka the Pope. If you want to be an Episcopalian, that is your right. If you want to be a Jew, that is your right. If you want to be part of any religion, that is your right. But if you profess to be a Catholic, there are certain rules you must follow. If not, you can be called to the carpet.

You have a warped notion that somehow religion and politics are mutually independent. They’re not.

This is not a political statement by the Pope or the Church. It is reality. If you choose to ignore reality, they’ll point it out to you and the world.

As for Christ calling sinners: You’re right. He called them to a life of conversion! When Christ saved the adulterous woman from stoning, he forgave her and told her to sin no more. He also forgave the repentant sinner on the cross next to him, but not the one who mocked Him. He told his disciples to shake the dust from their feet if they were refused in the towns that they went to.

This notion of universal forgiveness that you have is devoid of repentance. That is not the teaching of Christ.

Right because we all know Jesus only accepted the perfect, 100% followers, who had never committed sins, or disobeyed the church – oh, wait. He accepted tramps, prostitutes, etc.

And remember what he told the adulteress after he saved her from stoning: “I find no guilt in you, but from now on, avoid this sin”. If she kept on being a prostitute, she’d basically be stickin’ it to the Lord.

The Church still channels forgiveness, but it requires confession and repentance. Don’t play God for the fool.

Does the Pope have a right to dictate my religion to me? Yep. My politics? No. Great thing about America – separation between church and state. You know who else thinks their religious leaders have the right to dictate to their politicians, and interfere with politics? Muslims. You’d all be fine with an Imam dictating what one of our politicians does and believes, right?

Of course the Pope has the right to dictate your politics to you when those politics are directly contradictory to Church doctrine. For the individual, it’s water under the bridge. But for the political leader– at that point you have to stand up for what you believe. And if you want the Catholic vote, you have to be a Catholic. You can’t say, “I’m a Catholic, but I’ll vote on X, Y, and Z that totally undermine the Catechism.”

If you don’t want to toe the line of your religion, get out of your religion. But don’t use it a political tool. If you don’t want the Imams telling you what to do, get out of Islam. Or if you don’t want the Pope raining on your parade, renounce Catholicism. The big difference is that the Church won’t call a fatwa on your head for leaving.

My point isn’t that you should pick and choose. My point is that abortion is not right, and shouldn’t be tolerated. However, instead of trying to teach the right way of Christ, the Pope goes right ahead and threatens that if you don’t follow it now, you’re outa here.

This is a political statement. He didn’t say: “To all Catholics, if you want to be pro-choice, then you can’t stay in the church.” He went for, and addressed politicians.

He also forgave the repentant sinner on the cross next to him, but not the one who mocked Him.

Now, I don’t know about you, but I’ve not once seen Giuliani mock Christ. I’ve seen him support abortion, which is apparently a sin, but mocking I haven’t seen. Therefore, Giuliani would have been sinning, not mocking.

Amerpundit, excommunication doesn’t happen because someone makes a mistake, its when a person rejects a core teaching of the church and outwardly refuses to accept church doctrine on it, then excommunication can be handed down.

Great link on nullification. One of the requirements for a non-nullible marriage is:

Each party has the physical and psychological ability to live out God’s plan for married life as taught by the Church.

That’s a far bigger loophole that an abortion for the “health of the mother.” At the current rate of liberalization of the Catholic laiety, someday pregnancies are going to be nullified that way, making the debate moot (for them anyway). That is, until Plan B is available in vending machines.

Re the Pope getting into politics: he’s not. Your beef is with the voters who use Catholic doctrine to decide their vote. Good luck trying to change that.

The basis for the Church’s stance on excommunication comes from Jesus’ own lips. Matthew 18:15-17 is the passage where Jesus lays out the procedure for correcting a believer who has messed up, and continues to mess up. This procedure is not only carried out by Catholics, but also by many other protestant denominations (of which I am one.)

These politicians have made mistake, have not learned from them and are not living in the way of Christ.

Bottom line, ameripundit: If you’re not going to act like a Catholic, don’t call yourself one.

cmay on May 9, 2007 at 1:45 PM

You’re missing my point. I know they haven’t learned from them. And you know what, they won’t if you immediately go to excommunicate them.

Giuliani says he’s morally against it, and that it has to be a decision that’s made between a woman and God. He wouldn’t push for additional funding, and only supports the Hyde Amendment, something no President has tried to repeal since its passage. The amendment provides funding for abortion in cases of rape, incest, and when the delivery of a baby would be dangerous to the life of a woman.

Now, I don’t know about you, but I’ve not once seen Giuliani mock Christ. I’ve seen him support abortion, which is apparently a sin, but mocking I haven’t seen. Therefore, Giuliani would have been sinning, not mocking.

Hebrews 10:26-27

If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.

In the last few years, we’ve seen Rudy go from totally pro-choice, to on the fence, leaning right. Would that not be making progress towards being in the church’s view on abortion? He hasn’t thoroughly opposed accepting the church’s doctrine on the matter, he’s moved towards it, though slowly.

I’m not sure it’s a direct shot at Rudy, either, but he was the subject of the post. My whole point was, overall, I think Rudy’s learning to follow the ways of the church, as he’s moved towards being more pro-life. I just don’t think he’s opposed to the teachings, but he’s moving towards them. He’s learning.

I, for one, have been sick and tired of so-called Catholic politicians running around as though they can have it both ways. Their cowardice has been sickening and their hypocrisy frustrating. By their silence, they have allowed a virtual Holocaust-dimensioned atrocity to take place not only in the US, but in Canada, Europe and around the world.

What is damnable about these guys is not so much their silence and complicity in abortion, but it is the way they go out of their way to stigmatize anyone who opposes abortion…whether they are Catholic or otherwise. You ought to hear how so-called Catholic politicians attacked Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper about even the possibility of debating abortion in Canada.

If that is what these politicians believe, then fine. Good on them. But don’t come to Mass, all gussied up, and pretentious, and try to pretend that you’re a Catholic. In the US, you have had the likes Giuliani, Pelosi and anyone named Kennedy complicit in allowing the murder of unborn children. In Canada, the names include Chretien, Martin and Copps.(It may be unknown to Americans but, with the exception of the 4 month Kim Campbell Interregnum, every Prime Minister of Canada from 1969 until the election last year of Harper has been, nominally at least, Catholic. (Trudeau, Clark, Turner, Mulroney, Chretien and Martin). Yet Canada has no law whatsoever regulating abortion…you can kill the baby coming out of the birth canal).

So, as far as the Pope’s statement is concerned…good. It will call them out on their hypocrisy.

By the way, Allah. No one EVER has been excommunicated by the Catholic Church for “divorce“. The reason is that, under Church law, divorce does not exist. No one can get divorced. Thus, a person may obtain a civil divorce if they like and continue to receive sacraments because, in the eyes of the Church, the divorce has never happened. The problem arises if the divorced person purports to re-marry…

It’s fun to imagine the Pope reading America Alone doing the math, seeing that his predecessor fiddled while Rome emptied out, and realizing he can’t have any part of that. From what one reads, though, it’s already too late for Italy; if so, then whatever else he may do, it seems the Pope had better make plans to pack up and move to Vatican II.

The criteria for being excommunicated have been known for millenia. This is nothing new. All Catholics know what’s involved. And it just doesn’t happen at the drop of a hat. The problem has been that the Bishops who should be in charge of instructing their flock in proper teaching have been deficent. This isn’t really a shot at politicians, its a shot a bishops who are not being good shepards of their flocks. The Pope wants them to get off their asses and back in the game educating Catholics and others as to what the church teaches.

The Pope isn’t dictating politics, he’s defining Catholic teaching. The politican, or any lay person for that matter, can do whatever his conscience allows. They just have to accept that there are consequences either in this life or the next.

It’d be nice to see some pols excommunicated. Too many people think they can go through life consequence free.

By the way, Allah. No one EVER has been excommunicated by the Catholic Church for “divorce“. The reason is that, under Church law, divorce does not exist. No one can get divorced. Thus, a person may obtain a civil divorce if they like and continue to receive sacraments because, in the eyes of the Church, the divorce has never happened. The problem arises if the divorced person purports to re-marry…

Actually, there are two forms of canonical separation: a mensa et thoro: “from bed and board”, which is separation without the right of remarriage; and ad vincula” “from the chains”, which is a separation with the right to remarry. Divorce a mensa et thoro can be for a variety of reasons including incompatibility and abuse. The grounds for divorce ad vincula are a bit more constrained in which only certain grounds such as consanguinity or kinship, consent, age, or other legal and technical issues.

A common misconception of the Church was that it was inflexible regarding divorce and separation. On the whole, the Church was historically actually a very flexible and understanding institution. While it did–and still does–strive to maintain marriages whenever possible, it realizes that that cannot always be done. Very often, if you look at ecclesiastical court records, you’ll find that separations of both kinds were granted–if a given church official finds that a marriage is truly broken, he could almost always find some justifiable canonically legal grounds to terminate it.

I have a boat-load of issues with Catholicism, which it would be in bad taste to enumerate under this topic. But the accepted, unified leader of any organization has the power, authority, and responsibility to determine limits on behavior that accompany membership in that organization, as well as the penalties for non-compliance with those limits.

The Pope’s announcement is absolutely not political in nature. It is absolutely within his authority to hold members accountable for their sins, as the organization defines sins. He isn’t telling politicians they can’t run for office. He’s telling ALL members that if they take a position strongly opposed by the organization, they will lost membership.

I cannot see how anyone has a problem with this. Equating it with Islam attempting to dictate beliefs is not a valid analogy. A leader is dictating the organization’s laws to the organization’s membership. He isn’t telling me what to believe, because I am not a member. If you aren’t a member, he isn’t telling you what to believe. If you are a member, he is telling you what follows if you defy the organizations expectations of its members.

“Anything that tears down one group of people or one person, anything that is a negative in our community, disqualifies us from being part of the eternal city.”

The ‘good’ Cardinal Mahoney wrote about himself, above. As John and Ken say on their KFI show “he’s got boys under his frock”, meaning symbolically that he’s guilty of covering up his priests’ shenanigans and abuses of youths.

This week the head of the Los Angeles Archdiocese, Cardinal Roger Mahoney, basically threatened his faithful with denial of heaven if they don’t support amnesty for illegal aliens. The good Cardinal said: “Anything that tears down one group of people or one person, anything that is a negative in our community, disqualifies us from being part of the eternal city.”

Cardinal Mahoney is a flaming communist liberation theologian who doesn’t even believe in the Transsubstantiation, one of the key dogmas of the Catholic Church. Mother Angelica called him on it on EWTN, and then he threw a fit trying to get her punished by the Vatican, which didn’t work because everyone knew Mother Angelica spoke the truth.

Cardinal Mahoney is hardly a Catholic, and if there is anything “that disqualifies us from being part of the eternal city” it would be cardinals not believing in key tenets of the faith. So he hardly is one to talk.

Message to Cardinal Mahoney: What doctrine of the Catholic Church supports illegal immigration?

am I the only person who thinks the pope is kinda sticking his nose into political decisions that aren’t his area to go in?

No, you’re not. Speaking as a Catholic old enough to remember the anti-Catholicism leveled against JFK, the main argument against a Catholic president was that he would be more loyal to a foreign power than his own nation. I understand why many conservatives would hail this and I do sympathize, but it really is a bad idea. The same argument is used every day against Jews. Check out Daily Kos or HuffPo. The Church should get back to its business, saving souls, instead of sticking its nose in politics.

By the way, nullification hasn’t changed since the days of Henry VIII, so the rule hasn’t gone anywhere (though I think they did drop the consummation requirement, though you can get your marriage annulled in most states if it hasn’t been consummated). And also by the way, Mahoney is as far to the gooshy kumbayah left as Benedict is to the right.

Between Catholic-vs-abortion and Mormonism, the “anti-war” crowd (and I’m afraid this Pope may be with them regarding the war) are set to use religion as a weapon in this campaign, so that a “peace” candidate is elected. I hope Rudy and Mitt hit them back with all they’ve got.

“The Church should get back to its business, saving souls, instead of sticking its nose in politics.”

rightwingprof on May 9, 2007 at 2:55 PM

What do you think they’re doing for the Catholic politicians who are manifestly in error over abortion? Excommunication is, above all, a severe warning and call to repentance. It is a clear sign that the sins committed entail almost certain judgment by God, unless repentence is undertaken. The Church, frankly, is doing them a favor by excommunicating them, because it would finally be telling them that there are serious consequences to aiding in abortion.

About JFK and Catholicism – I don’t know if it was media spin or if he really said it, but if he said that he would not govern on the basis of his experience, upbringing, and morals as taught by his Catholic beliefs, then he was wrong. What ELSE are we to expect our politicians to govern us on? We expect our politicians to uphold morality and justice. If their religious beliefs teach them that abortion is wrong, then it’s fine for them to further policies condemning abortion. The Church does not demand that a Catholic President bow down before the Pope, but it does expect him, if he continues to be Catholic, to uphold the moral, natural laws that govern all humanity.

If the god and heaven (and hell) that Mahoney professes to believe in actually do exist, then there is no doubt he will burn in that hell for his role in protecting and enabling child molesters.

I’ve never seen a more disgusting display of hypocricy than this snake making moral pronouncements about those he sees as “tearing down” the flock that he feeds on. And that’s what he does – he feeds on them.

I wonder how he feels about catholic Marines who have killed in combat. If he’s willing to toss us to purgatory for securing our borders, I’m sure he has no warmth in his heart for professional soldiers.

Based on early Christian doctrine, this should have been done decades ago. On the other hand, there is no commandment about putting up protective fences or recognizing borders. I’m sure Augustine would back me up on this one after having to deal with Vandals first hand.

Here’s a twist: Almost every Catholic GOP politician could be excommunicated for support of Capitol Punishment.

Truth.

Google it.

natesnake on May 9, 2007 at 4:02 PM

Wrong. Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph # 2267: “Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.”

It goes on to hope that the penalty’s application could be “very rare.” But you know what else is very rare? Mass murdering scumbags.

I wonder how he feels about catholic Marines who have killed in combat. If he’s willing to toss us to purgatory for securing our borders, I’m sure he has no warmth in his heart for professional soldiers.

Alden Pyle on May 9, 2007 at 4:12 PM

Pope Benedict, when he was Cardinal Ratzinger, had very positive things to say about soldiers. At the 60th anniversary of D-Day, he said this:

The only way to shatter this cycle of crime and reestablish the rule of law was an intervention by the whole world… Here it is clear that the intervention of the Allies was a bellum iustum, a “just war” … perhaps the clearest example in all history of a just war…. The defense of the rule of law against those who seek to destroy it must sometimes employ violence. This element of force must be precisely calculated, and its goal must always be the protection of the law. An absolute pacifism that refused to grant the law any effective means for its enforcement would be a capitulation to injustice. It would sanction the seizure of power by this injustice and would surrender the world to the dictatorship of force…

Our Constitution protects religion from the intrusion or coercion of the state. But we have precious little protection against the political adventurism of all manner of churches and religious organizations.

As much as I personally believe that separation of Church and state has encouraged Americans to attend Church and allowed the US to become greater than if the Church ruled the state, this is actually true, the Church is protected from the state but not necessarily the state from the Church.

Reading the Lou Dobbs article made me want to ask is there different levels of heaven and hell?

Maybe it’s possible to say to someone, that’s not hell enough for you, seems not that much different from saying he’s not Christian enough.

I wonder how he feels about catholic Marines who have killed in combat.

The Catholic Church is fine with Marines.

2265. Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

No. Unless you see no problem being locked up with a serial killer. Go ahead. You can be his roommate.

If memory serves correct, the most heinous offenders have their own cells. Tim McVeigh had his own cell just a few doors down from the Unibomber.

Bottom line, we have millions of people in prison. We only execute hundreds (114 in 2006) of them a year. The appeals process is long, ineffective, and costly. From a financial standpoint, we’d save money not executing them.

I missquoted a statistic. There were only 54 executions in 2006. There was 114 death sentences handed down in 2006.

The Catholic church does not support Capitol Punishment. I remember this being a sticking point with John Paul II. The Church supports “preservation of all life” which includes opposition to abortion, the death penalty, and euthenasia.

I’m not here to change your mind, just to give some statistics. I’m Catholic and try my best (and it’s a bitch sometimes) to faithfully follow all the cannons of the Church.

Ole Rudy has had a public life for decades and has persistently been pro-abortion. This is not new as you seem to imply.

I think Rudy’s learning to follow the ways of the church, as he’s moved towards being more pro-life. I just don’t think he’s opposed to the teachings, but he’s moving towards them. He’s learning.

amerpundit

As you said, the Pope was not addressing any particular politician much less Rudy. However, Rudy is still unapologetically pro-abortion. He may be trying to hone a more palatable message than his “Get over it” line. But he is still for unlimited abortion (including partial birth abortion).

Here’s a twist: Almost every Catholic GOP politician could be excommunicated for support of Capitol Punishment.

natesnake

Not true. The Catholic Church’s teaching on capital punishment is that it is morally licit but should be used sparingly. Pope John Paul II was notably against the death penalty in societies that had the ability to remove dangerous people by imprisonment. He, however, was always clear that this was his personal opinion and it did not constitute a teaching of the Church. You can disagree with the Pope on this issue and still be in union with the Church.

. . .the “anti-war” crowd (and I’m afraid this Pope may be with them regarding the war)

Halley

Here’s a little exercise for all those who thing that JPII or BXVI were against us overthrowing Saddam Hussein: Show me a quote from either of them. JPII did say that when man resorted to war all mankind loses but he also acknowledged the unfortunate necessity of war at times. He never, to my knowledge, specifically criticized Bush or the US and actually removed any Vatican spokesman who did.

Here-in can be found the basic problem with all lefty positions; “I want to be a member of the _ _ _ _ _ ( fill in the blank: church, nation, club, organization, whatever you choose) but I don’t want to follow any of the rules, regulations, laws, beliefs, guidelines or doctrines that I personally don’t like. However do not have the audacity to say I am not a member in good standing, patriot, loyal member, merely because I choose to follow certain rules , and ignore the ones I disagree with. Only a liberal has the twisted sort of logic that says I can ignore all the rules and still demand entrance or claim membership in the club, its called inverting reality
CBP

…the will of the masses is divided by far-reaching distortions and the mass mind is corrupted by a knowledge worse than ignorance because it is false.
Ely Culbertson

This week the head of the Los Angeles Archdiocese, Cardinal Roger Mahoney, basically threatened his faithful with denial of heaven if they don’t support amnesty for illegal aliens….

Guess he forgot about that little something in the bible about honoring your government and following their dictates. Just a little oversight, a few words in the bible that can be ignored…no big deal, the Cardinal can choose what part of the bible to adhere to, he is a Cardinal…not some ordinary man, he is special, he can ignore God’s words.

That is a flat-out, 100% pure lie. You are lying. Stop. I just quoted a section of the Catechism of the Catholic Church which says the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty.

Your persistant defiance of this teaching is just as bad as those Catholic politicians who persist in supporting abortion. It’s one thing to think that most, if not all, criminals should avoid execution. But you are LYING ABOUT THE CHURCH’S TEACHING ON THE DEATH PENALTY.

Okay, regarding the ex-communication for women in the church who have an abortion. They have this “Project Rachel” which is designed to ask for forgiveness, reflect on the terrible deed, and to offer the forgiveness of the Church. Depending on the Diocese sometimes there even is a special Mass once or twice a year for those who have had an abortion. In fact, last night here in Augusta there was one of those Masses and it was open to not only the women but the men who also participated in one way or another with abortion and no issues were made as to why you may have been there. I would know, because as I told you all last year that is something I live with everyday and will for the rest of my life.
As for the Cardinal, well as others have said, he’s got to be kidding me. I cannot find where in Church doctrine that said that we must let all the illegals come in regardless of the laws that they’re breaking. This sort of garbage makes me sick.
As for Pelosi, Kennedy, Rudy, et. al. they have to live with their own conscience. Perhaps they don’t have one of those but maybe they do. Although, I have to wonder.
I remember when Tim Kaine was elected Gov. of VA & he said that his faith wouldn’t interfere with the carrying out of the death penalty. However, shortly after he took office he stayed the execution of some killer. I will be honest and I cannot tell you if anyone has been executed since he took office. It would be interesting if anyone knows.
As for the death penalty, as far as I’m concerned take them to Gitmo and never let them have contact with their family, television and have them make little rocks out of big ones. Their families should not have the opportunity to visit them just as the families of their victims cannot sit and conversate with their loved ones anymore either thanks to the criminal.
Sorry for the rambling.

Mahoney is guilty of a great many things. Working the dodge to keep pedophile priests out of trouble is certainly among the worst. Playing legal games to avoid complying with warrants, destroying records, etc., all to what end? Protecting the criminals, and ignoring the innocent victims.

I don’t know how all that squares with his “flock”, made up more and more of illegal mexican immigrants, most of whom have very strong family values. Mahoney doesn’t care, as long as they can keep coming, his coffers can keep getting more and more full.

Right because we all know Jesus only accepted the perfect, 100% followers, who had never committed sins, or disobeyed the church – oh, wait. He accepted tramps, prostitutes, etc.

They repented.

Does the Pope have a right to dictate my religion to me? Yep. My politics? No. Great thing about America – separation between church and state. You know who else thinks their religious leaders have the right to dictate to their politicians, and interfere with politics? Muslims. You’d all be fine with an Imam dictating what one of our politicians does and believes, right?

Don’t be ridiculous. The Pope has no political authority. The separation between Church and State? What insitution of the US government (or any other government) is the Pope currently in charge of? Gee, maybe we small government types should votes for an administration that will cut off federal funding to the Vatican. It’s bad enough that the Democrats increase spending on welfare but that recent $18 million subsidy to the Catholic Church really crosses the line.

Wake up amerpundit. The Pope exercises a moral authority. He inspires and enrages millions of people because of it. You haven’t the slightest obligation to pay attention to anything he says. If you and I are allowed to give our opinions on politics then why isn’t he?

This is a political statement. He didn’t say: “To all Catholics, if you want to be pro-choice, then you can’t stay in the church.” He went for, and addressed politicians.

He didn’t go for and address politicians. He was asked a question and answered truthfully. Let me refresh your memory:

The Pope was asked whether he supported Mexican Church leaders threatening to excommunicate leftist parliamentarians who last month voted to legalize abortion in Mexico City. “Yes, this excommunication was not an arbitrary one but is allowed by Canon (church) law which says that the killing of an innocent child is incompatible with receiving communion, which is receiving the body of Christ,” he said.

The Pope isn’t Bill Clinton. He can’t, and would not and should not, weasel his way out of simple questions. The fact that the Pope is Catholic seems to be very surprising to you. A Pope who upholds Catholic doctrine? Say it isn’t so!

Sydney, I’ve been more than cordial with you. I gave a clear argument that didn’t explore name-calling. Gloves off.

You are an itellectually dishonest harping wingbat. You support capitol punishment; great. But when it comes to the Church, there is a huge difference between “supporting” capitol punishment and tolerating it “if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.” It is not the only possible way. Option #2 is life in prison.

This is an itellectual argument so it may be over your head.

Lastly, you can take your bile, revenge, and hatred; wad it up in a tight little ball; and shove it up your a$$.

Sydney, I’ve been more than cordial with you. I gave a clear argument that didn’t explore name-calling. Gloves off.

You are an itellectually dishonest harping wingbat. You support capitol punishment; great. But when it comes to the Church, there is a huge difference between “supporting” capitol punishment and tolerating it “if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.” It is not the only possible way. Option #2 is life in prison.

This is an itellectual argument so it may be over your head.

Lastly, you can take your bile, revenge, and hatred; wad it up in a tight little ball; and shove it up your a$$.

natesnake on May 10, 2007 at 8:36 AM

natesnake: It’s a far, far better thing you do than you have ever done.

What do you think they’re doing for the Catholic politicians who are manifestly in error over abortion?

You’re referring to intent. Intent is irrelevant to my point, which is that this will only fuel anti-Catholicism. It’s already started. Did you see that “column” about how the SCOTUS voted the way they did on the partial birth abortion law because the Pope told them to?